" You can argue with a million people and win, but you can't argue with a fool. He won't stop until you do."

Quote from guy who's name I can't remember.

Why don't you tell me the devs name?   Chances are good I can grab an interview with him.

By the way.  Yes, a tiny CPU.  Ever work with a PowerPC A2 with just 4 cores at 1.4 Ghz using just 20 watts?   No?  Guess what?  It's tiny and can be cooled passively.   It's also pretty damn powerful all things considered.

But, you know..."Low clock speeds, low power consumption, tiny heat sink. 
The CPU will suck."

By the way, you've still not given us the exact parameters needed for a new console to be a next generation console.  What does Mazty require?   And we'll need parameters for just about everything otherwise 1 componenet could strong, the other week and you'd still cry foul.   So be thorough.  

No - it was said with confidence. 

"1.4Ghz". "All things considered" - ah. So it's shit then? 
Does that beat an i5? Didn't think so. Does it even beat Phenom X4 II's? Doesn't sound like it would. 

A next gen console should be one that is released a few years after the main contenders whilst also demonstrating a significant technological advancement. The WiiU being next-gen when it's on-par with the 360 and PS3? Ha. That's just a late contender to this gen. 

End of the day, you're 34 and arguing about something you clearly don't understand, and game consoles for that matter. For shame. 

"No - it was said with confidence."

lolz!

enougth. report.

Hence why his/her name has not been mentioned...

So we get no name from the developer and a vague, subjective technical parameter for what constitutes as next generation.  Got it.

The guy is full of shit.

People are far too technology focused when it comes to discussions on improving games or defining a generation ...

When I look at how movies have evolved over time there is certainly a technical portion of improvement which is (mostly) focused on special effects, but there are significant elements on the technical side involving improved film and audio recording. While you can certainly date movies based on their technical elements, it is far more meaningful to group movies together based on the creative evolution over what has been produced; in other words to compare movies based on the acting, directing, editing, writing, and art direction rather than how grainy the film is or how good the special effects look.

Although a technical evaluation of games would have games produced for handheld systems as (potentially) being part of a different generation than console games, when you look at the creative side of things there are actually striking similarities to what is being done for the systems because they games are being produced at a similar time.

With the Wii and HD consoles it becomes somewhat difficult to compare them primarily because most of what was done was drastically different; and even if most Wii games were created with advanced HD graphics, or most HD console games were produced with graphics on par with the Wii, you wouldn't say that these systems were comparable. The Wii wasn't necessarily "less advanced" it was just focused on the advancement of games in a different way. To use an analogy from a different market, Nintendo was focused on producing a Prius while Microsoft was building a Mustang and Sony was producing a Camero; based on the single metric of "Horsepower" Sony and Microsoft are obviously more advanced, but when you expand the comparisons further it becomes less clear.

From a compute stand point the Turks based Radeon (Aka. Radeon 6570, 6670, 7570, 7670, E6760) would be around 2X as fast as the Hybrid Radeon x1900/2900 found in the xbox and Geforce 7900 based chips found in the PS3.

However, the chips are cheap, low power and are far more efficient than the GPU's found in the Xbox 360 and PS3.

However, expect an increase in performance greater than 2x as the Turks based Radeon has allot more performance saving tricks up it's sleeve than the ancient GPU's found in the Xbox and PS3.
Features such as 3Dc texture compression which allows the GPU to compress Texture Map, Normal Maps, Bump Maps to a ratio of 4:1, which means the chip can get a massive increase in Texture, Bump Map, Normal map quality using the same amount of bandwidth and Ram as the current consoles which typically have to do such tasks on the processor or not at all. (With the exception of Texture compression.)

Texture filtering hardware for floating point textures has been massively improved, essentially Bi-Linear, Tri-Linear, Anisotropic is free.

Tessellation, the Xbox 360 could do it, but at a massive performance cost, it was used sparingly in games and was more or less only used to enhance the geometry in water in some titles like Halo 3, you can really notice the effect in say Viva Pinata too. - The PS3 however lacks this functionality.
More Geometry is never a bad thing. :)

Better hardware scheduler and more/faster/lower latency cache to optimize instruction level parallelism for better performance. I.E. Less shader pipelines are ever idle, another boon over the PS3 is that more pipelines can be focused on a task as the pipelines are all unified.

These are just the performance/efficiency enhancements that are on the "Surface", there has been allot of changes over 7 years in regards to graphics rendering, but I expect several multiples of image quality over the current generation consoles, especially as developers learn all the tricks of the trade with the new hardware.

Also, you can't forget the compute aspects either, CPU not up to the task of doing some Physics calculations? No problem, let the GPU handle it, hence the console would need a less beefier CPU.

Overall, Nintendo also like to build consoles that they can profit from, so going with smaller and more efficient hardware is a wise choice to getting to that goal.